Narrative reviews from a fraudulent author: reasons to retract

Excerpt

Clinical studies from fraudulent authors are retracted, but narrative reviews are not. We believe that reviews should be considered for retraction, too. J. Boldt is number 2 on the top list of fraudulent authors; currently, 96 of his clinical studies have been retracted since 2010. Earlier trials from the 1990s are also suspected for fraudulence, but the ethics boards no longer keep the documents, making it difficult to prove [1]. Fraudulent clinical studies generate false evidence that may harm patients [1, 2]. Narrative reviews based on falsified data generate false messages that may also result in patient harm. The effect of narrative reviews on clinical practise should not be underestimated. We believe that narrative reviews may be quite influential especially in contentious fields. Readers may prefer narrative reviews because they are easy to follow and contain clear recommendations [3], while systematic reviews, though considered to be of higher quality, may appear “boring and sometimes unimplementable” [4] and contain no or limited recommendations. Indeed, leading journals publish more narrative than systematic reviews [5]. …